-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| Andy Green wrote:
||> What it impacts is what we should test against.
|| Exactly my point.
||> It's fine there are an
|> uncontrolled number of rootfs out there with random things in, but it
|> means I don't have time to test against them and rely on the users of
|> the rootfs to inform about problems.
|| And that's exactly what we have in this case -- a report from a user.
||> It looks like Jeremy is planning to be "internal tester" for kernel on
|> whatever rootfs he prefers
|| Great. But let's not summarily dismiss the bug reports from others who
| choose not to use whatever rootfs that turns out to be.
Really. Well, I'll give your wisdom about that some deep thought.
|> Does Android need APM or is this just FUD?
|| Android was mentioned because it is a prominent example of an external
| rootfs that the Om kernel team seems to take seriously. I *do* know for
So, just FUD.
| a fact that the FSO distro and the SHR distros both use apmd, and the
| rootfs' with the pre-canned Qtopia and the Qt Extended rootfs' both use
| apmd. I'm not sure what the Debian rootfs uses, but I believe it to be
| apmd as well.
Hey you know that guy who writes the weekly Openmoko reports, even he
said 20th Oct: ''I would like to make an unrequested announcement for
the sake of the good vertical communication: Kernels currently has the
APM power management interface is still compiled in. This has been
deprecated for years and is doomed to go away. Hopefully apm -s will
still work for suspend, but userspace applications that still use the
deprecated apm interface SHOULD take action, preferably sooner than later.''
http://lwn.net/Articles/303942/
You know thinking about this 2.6.28 step up is probably the right time
to disable APM in the kernel completely if that's really a good idea.
There's already a bunch of attention needed for the move, and people in
all rootfs will be aware that this update is coming. At the moment we
have APM emulation and CONFIG_APM_POWER in there, tomorrow I'll give it
a go with these disabled and see what blows up.
- -Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkk8V6oACgkQOjLpvpq7dMrFvgCdH69lhJ2lgTZ86rUMDTt+N0hT
tkgAniSkV2WqWeAc671wt87Wfsr1EOQX
=2vql
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----